“Los Angeles County officials ‘informed us that the total number of registered voters [in the County] now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.’”

FAR MORE REGISTERED VOTERS THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE OF VOTING AGE.

That’s doesn’t work. That’s fraud.

Now add this to the mix. Over a million illegal immigrants (some say far more) have received driver’s licenses in California. All of them (unless they specifically opt out), are automatically registered to vote by the Dept. of Motor Vehicles.

Put all this insanity together, and what do you get? A gigantic number of people who can illegally cast votes. Because, in California, it’s legal to be illegal.

Want to proceed further down the rabbit hole?

It’s probable that many illegal immigrants don’t vote. If someone wanted to vote FOR them, how would that work?

Not one at a time, unless some sinister organization had at least half a million foot soldiers on call, on Election Day.

But here is a possible clue: electronic voting systems.

Back in 2007, the secretary of state of California ordered a “Top-to-Bottom Review” of all electronic voting systems currently in use in California elections.

In other words, up to that time, these systems had been considered a very fine way to run the vote count. The systems obviously had been tested and re-tested and checked and approved. They were already being used in the state of California.

The first three systems were disqualified from further use…and then conditionally re-approved. The fourth system was rejected altogether.

To suppose that, after this top-to-bottom review in 2007, everything was quickly fixed is a leap only the foolish and unwary would take—particularly when we are talking about extremely talented hackers who could be employed to change election-vote numbers.

I read the California Top-to-Bottom Review. The public comments section at the end was illuminating. It contained explosive remarks.

For example, there was a discussion of vendors pretending to sell certain voting machines to the state of California…but actually selling other machines…machines that were not certified for use.

Another comment indicated that California lacked a method to ensure the source code for voting-machine software actually belonged to software certified by the state.

All in all, there is no guarantee (far from it) that the California voting system is safe or effective or honest.

If someone manipulated the system, and somehow utilized the huge numbers of illegal immigrants who are registered to vote, as a cover for falsified numbers…

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

But keep in mind that major news networks always make their projections of the winners on election night. This is another vector for gross fraud. The projections are estimates. But once they are announced, the game is over in most cases. In other words, declaring the winner is a media event, owned and operated by the networks. (See also here and here)

How are these projections put together?

Here is a compilation, slightly revised, of the most-read articles I’ve ever written. They were about the California vote on Prop 37, which tried and failed to mandate GMO labeling on food. The articles explain a great deal about early projections:

November 8, 2012: “Did Prop 37 Really Lose Or Was It Vote Fraud?”

Hold your horses.

On election night, not long after the polls closed in California, the media announcement came: Prop 37 was losing. A little while later, it was all over. Projection: 37 had gone down to defeat.

But is that the whole story? No.

As of 2:30PM today, Thursday, November 8th, two days after the election, many votes in California remain uncounted.

I tried to find out how many.

It turns out that the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, doesn’t know.

I was told all counties in California have been asked, not ordered, to report in with those figures. It’s voluntary.

So I picked out a few of the biggest counties and called their voter registrar offices. Here are the boggling results:

* Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted.

* Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted.

* San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted.

* LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted.

In just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted.

The California Secretary of State’s website indicates that Prop 37 is behind by 559,776 votes.

So in the four counties I looked into, there are roughly three times as many uncounted votes as the margin of Prop 37’s defeat.

And as I say, I checked the numbers in only four counties. There are 54 other counties in the state. Who knows how many votes they still need to process?

So why is anyone saying Prop 37 lost?

People will respond, “Well, it’s all about projections. There are experts. They know what they’re doing. They made a prediction…”

Really? Who are those experts?

For big elections, the television networks often rely on a consortium called the National Election Pool (NEP). NEP does projections and predictions. Did NEP make the premature call on Prop 37?

NEP makes some calls for the television networks, but NEP is composed of CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, and AP. It could hardly be called an independent source of information for those networks.

NEP has AP (Associated Press) do the actual vote tabulating, and NEP also contracts work out to Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International to do exit polls and projections based on those polls.

Edison Media Research did the exit polls in the state of Washington for this Election Day. How? They surveyed 1493 people by phone. Based on that, I assume they made all the projections for elections in that state, even though there is no in-person voting in Washington, and voters can submit their ballots by mail, postmarked no later than Election Tuesday. So how could Edison know anything worth knowing or projecting about mail-in ballots on election night?

Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts. Edison/Mitofsky are favorite go-to people at CNN.

So if NEP did the premature Prop 37 projections that handed Prop 37 a resounding loss, there is little reason to accept their word.

We’re faced with a scandal here. An early unwarranted projection against Prop 37 was made, when so many votes were still uncounted.

Those votes are still uncounted.

Why should we believe anything that comes next?

—end article—

Then, a month later, on December 10, 2012, I wrote this:

Food Democracy Now is weighing in on Prop 37 vote fraud, having discovered that the California Secretary of State, in charge of all elections in CA, has stopped posting updates on the ongoing vote count.

From November 6 all the way to up to December 4, these updates were posted daily on the Secretary of State’s website. Then…blackout. No more updates.

Maybe it has something to do with this: On December 4, YES ON 37 votes climbed over the six-million mark: 6,004,628. Food Democracy Now reported it. Then, suddenly, the YES ON 37 votes reversed!

That’s right. They went back to the previously reported number: 5,986,652.

This is apparently a new wrinkle in vote counting. You can not only add votes, you can go backwards. You can lose 18,000 votes with the flick of a wrist or the blink of a digital operation.

Now you see 18,000 Yes votes, now you don’t.

The latest Food Democracy Now article on vote fraud mentions a team of independent statisticians, who have found “statistical anomalies” in the largest voting precincts of nine CA counties, including LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Alameda, and Orange.

Also worth noting: I previously wrote about the Secretary of State’s “top-to-bottom” review (2007) of all electronic voting systems then in use in CA. This review discovered fatal flaws in all four systems…but then three of those systems were re-approved for use, after being disqualified. I see no clear evidence that the flaws were fixed.

The top-down review mentioned that Alameda County (one of the counties the team of statisticians is now studying for fraud) had purchased voting machines that turned out to be counterfeits. They had been advertised as legitimate, but they weren’t.

I’m told the Yes on 37 campaign is alert to Food Democracy Now’s charges of fraud, and they are considering a petition for a recount. We’ll see.

Of course, no recount will expose electronic fraud unless very talented experts can examine the full range of electronic systems now in use in CA.

—end of December 2012 article—

Finally, late in 2012, I wrote this:

I tracked the early media projection against Prop 37, on election night, to its most probable source, the Associated Press (AP).

AP, the giant wire service, is officially a non-profit owned by 1400 member newspapers, who use its services and also contribute articles. So AP is major media personified. Again, hardly a trusted source.

And as everyone knows, the newspaper business in America is dying. Its bottom line is sitting in a lake of red ink, and the lake is sitting in an ocean of red ink.

That means these newspapers, and the corporations who own them, have been re-financing their very existence with loans, and loans to pay off earlier loans. That means banks.

Now you’re getting into the oligarchy that owns this country, and what that oligarchy wants; what they want to win, and who they want to win…

—end of Prop 37 articles—

Back to the present, 2016. You see how this works. Media organizations are relying on other media organizations, to which they’re intimately connected, to make the early projections on election night. It’s all a shell game, created to give the impression that “independent organizations” are “objectively” analyzing the early vote returns and coming up with “scientific projections.”

Beware.

One media hand is washing the other media hand, and both hands belong to the same body.

Don’t accept projections.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Okay. She finally did it. On Monday, Bev Harris (blackboxvoting.org), the great investigator of vote fraud, appeared on the Alex Jones show and laid it all out. The GEMS vote-fraud system, “fraction magic,” the way the vote is being stolen. Not just in theory, but in fact. Listen to the whole interview and get the word out. Bev’s findings are staggering. Below the video is the original piece I did on this earlier this month.

High Alert: the election can still be rigged

Votes counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers

…[A]mazingly, the vote-rigging system it describes has not gotten widespread attention. The system can be used across the entire US.

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS.

I urge you to dive into her multi-part series, Fraction Magic (Part-1 here). Here are key Harris quotes. They’re all shockers:

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

“This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.”

“GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.”

“Instead of ‘1’ the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.”

“Weighting a race [through the use of GEMS] removes the principle of ‘one person-one vote’ to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.”

“All evidence that [rigged] fractional values ever existed [in the GEMS system] can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the [rigged] decimals will fail to reveal they were used.”

“Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers [i.e., rigging] are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.”

A contact who, so far, apparently wishes to remain anonymous states the following about the history of the GEMS system:

“The Fractional vote [rigging] portion traces directly to Jeffrey W. Dean, whose wife was primary stockholder of the company that developed GEMS. He ran the company but was prohibited from handling money or checks due to a criminal conviction for computer fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Almost immediately after being released from prison he was granted intimate access to elections data and large government contracts for ballot printing and ballot processing.”

I see no effort on the part of the federal government, state governments, or the mainstream press to investigate the GEMS system or respond to Bev Harris’ extensive analysis.

“Harris has been referred to as ‘the godmother’ of the election reform movement. (Boston Globe). Vanity Fair magazine credits her with founding the movement to reform electronic voting. Time Magazine calls her book, Black Box Voting, ‘the bible’ of electronic voting… Harris’s investigations have led some to call her the ‘Erin Brockovich of elections.’ (Salon.com)… Harris has supervised five ‘hack demonstrations’ in the field, using real voting machines. These have been covered by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and in formal reports by the United States General Accounting Office…”

So far, her analysis of GEMS seems to be labeled “too hot to handle.” Press outlets prefer to report the slinging of mud from both Presidential candidates’ camps. Meanwhile, the actual results of the coming elections—including Congressional races—appear to be up for grabs, depending on who controls GEMS.

Update: From what I understand, each state government appoints a “consultant” to manage GEMS on election night. That person would be capable of rigging the vote.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Note: this article is about the early projections media outlets make on election night—when they call the winner.

Here it is in a nutshell: major media consider the election a media event.

Therefore, they control it.

Therefore, when they project the election-outcome the night of the vote, even though that call is unofficial, they want compliance from the candidates. THEY WANT A FAST CONCESSION SPEECH from the loser. Well, a concession from Trump, because the networks and their allies in print newspapers are already painting a picture of a Hillary victory (for example, see this WaPo article). The picture is: Trump’s campaign is falling apart, Hillary is leading in battleground states, and she may even expand her reach into states Trump was previously thought to have wrapped up.

On Meet the Press Sunday, Mike Pence was asked point blank: if you lose on election night, will you and Donald concede? And Pence said yes.

The media-concocted story line: if Trump loses and he refuses to concede, because he believes the count was rigged, he’ll be inciting violence and endangering the country.

Of course, the networks calling the election victory is unofficial. It’s all happening in a bubble.

The networks are terrified that Trump will refuse to concede if they say he lost. Instead, he will say: “My team and I have definite knowledge of widespread vote fraud in many states. As I speak, we are filing suits. We not only want an accurate recount, we want criminal charges brought against the vote riggers. We know who they are. Some of the culprits are media networks. You can say I’m a sore loser but I’m not. I’m for fairness, and we don’t have that. We’re going all the way with our accusations and our facts. All along I’ve been saying the system is corrupt. Now we’re going to prove that…”

The media could then be accused of direct complicity in stealing the election.

So…how do the networks decide who wins an election? Buckle up. Here is a concise description from Wikipedia. Notice that the media are basically getting their vote-info from…themselves:

“The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of American news organizations formed in 2003 to provide ‘information on Election Night about the vote count, election analysis and election projections.’ Member companies consist of ABC News, the Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News. The organization relies on the Associated Press to perform vote tabulations and contracted with Edison Research and Mitofsky International to ‘make projections and provide exit poll analysis.’ Edison Research has provided this data since 2004.

“The precursor was Voter News Service, which was disbanded in 2003, after controversies over the 2000 and 2002 election results. The NEP plan is largely the suggestion of CNN, which used Edison/Mitofsky as consultants in the past. Mitofsky headed the original pool that preceded VNS.

“The organizers of the pool insist that the purpose of their quick collection of exit poll data is not to determine if an election is flawed, but rather to project winners of races. Despite past problems, they note that none of their members has incorrectly called a winner since the current system was put in place. However, to avoid the premature leaking of data, collection is now done in a ‘Quarantine Room’ at an undisclosed location in New York. All participants are stripped of outside communications devices until it is time for information to be released officially.”

Doesn’t that warm the cockles of your heart and give you great confidence?

Back in 2012, I wrote this about Edison Research and Mitofsky:

“Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts.

“Edison and Mitofsky issued a later report explaining how the disparity could have occurred; they tried to validate their own exit-poll data and the vote-count, which was like explaining a sudden shift in ocean tides by saying clouds covered the moon. It made no sense.”

But wait. Even though media giants are getting their election-night info from themselves, they must be basing that info on actual vote counts in the 50 states, as reported by the secretaries of states. Right? Read the last two paragraphs again. The exit polls differed greatly from the vote counts.

And remember, if widespread electronic vote fraud occurs on election night (read my previous piece on the crooked GEMS vote-tabulating system used across the US in 25% of the vote), the early media projections of a Presidential winner will serve to cut off any doubt about, or investigation into, the veracity of the GEMS system.

“Well, there it is, America. All networks are now projecting the winner. We are waiting for a concession speech from the loser…”

Between now and election night, expect pressure to build on Trump to concede if/when he loses…

“In our American democracy, a peaceful transition from one President to the next is the hallmark of our stability. If Mr. Trump refuses to play by the rules, he is a clear and present danger…”

Trump goes on national television and refuses to concede. Instead, he calls the vote-count a criminal act and has his lawyers file numerous suits.

Then, precisely timed, George Soros-funded riots break out in key cities. Amid the destruction, the media blame Trump for the violence. It’s all his fault. He’s the great divider.

Lifted by strong arms from her wheelchair, pumped up on God knows what drugs, Hillary walks out on stage in a large hall, before screaming adoring fans, and with eyes glowing and a huge smile pasted on her face, gives a speech about a new era in America, and how she will heal wounds and help restore unity and opportunity for all…

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The other day I wandered over to the New York Times to see what their front page looked like.

My, my. It was another universe.

Nothing about the pounding Hillary took in the second debate. Nothing about the latest email leaks showing extreme collusion between Hillary’s camp and the mainstream press. Nothing about Bill’s rape accusers taking front and center. Nothing about Hillary threatening those accusers. Nothing about Hillary’s role in creating ISIS. Nothing about election pollsters contributing to the Clinton Foundation. Nothing about outrage among FBI agents and DOJ attorneys after failure to prosecute Hillary in the email server crime—thus allowing her to continue her run for the Presidency. Nothing about her failing health. Nothing about polls (that show a Hillary lead) slanted by oversampling Democrats. Nothing about Hillary hiding out once again and avoiding press and public.

Instead, in this alternate NY Times universe, Trump’s campaign was falling apart. He was singlehandedly destroying the Republican Party and endangering upcoming Senate and House races. Hillary’s poll numbers were in good shape and her campaign was moving in the direction of an expected victory. And to top it off, one of the Times’ potato-head columnists burped out an op-ed about Trump’s “sad, lonely world.”

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

After I recovered, my first thought was: The Times is running cover for a vote-rig on election night: “As expected, Hillary Clinton cruised to an easy victory, sweeping nearly 30 states…”

I’m sure the headlines are already composed and the lead paragraphs are already written.

After that, I began thinking about major media companies, reporters, and pollster outfits contributing to the Clinton Foundation. What’s actually going on here? Cooking the news for Hillary is one thing; but why take the risk of actually delivering money to the Clintons?

You would only do something so egregious if you believed Hillary and Bill had accumulated a tremendous amount of power; if you were overtly signaling your loyalty to the King and Queen.

A few facts do, indeed, suggest such royal power.

Hillary has managed to position herself as the face and heart and soul of the Democratic Party. That is no small feat.

Hillary was able to maneuver an attack against Libya that eviscerated the whole country and sent it down into horrific chaos—and she was able to avoid any official blame for it.

Her Foundation has run a multi-billion-dollar, global, money-laundering machine for 20 years, during which time big donors have been accorded special economic and political favors—including the mind-bending permission to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia. The Foundation is, in essence, a new arm of the federal government. No federal agency has investigated it. The players and donors involved in the Foundation have such international clout, exposure of the game would set off a scandal making Watergate look like a pimple on the face of a cockroach living in another galaxy.

And here, perhaps, we have the core of the situation. The Clintons have always known that cash makes the winners and losers. And so they have become grand facilitators. Greasers of wheels. You want to get things done, law or no law? Go to the fixers and their Foundation. You want governments to give you contracts and concessions? Mining rights? Pharmaceutical sales? Disaster-aid monopoly? Pay to play through the Foundation. There is a slick pipeline for fast action. And it operates under the cover of a charity. Everybody’s doing it. Don’t worry, it’ll never be prosecuted. It’s too big and too dirty to fail. Oil billionaires are on board. National governments and presidents are on board. Mega-corporations are on board. Other charities are hooked in.

Just one example: Through the Foundation, friends of Bill Clinton cashed in on US government contracts (the pie to be cut up was $10 billion) to “help Haiti” in the wake of the 2010 earthquake. Human-aid experience? Know-how? Irrelevant. The whole scam looked like it was legit, coming through the US State Department, headed by Hillary, but it was really a Foundation operation. Who was helped? Mostly, the friends of Bill. Who was left out in the cold? The Haitians.

Major media outfits are basically saying to Hillary and Bill: “Look, too much information about the Foundation is leaking. We have to cover it. But we’ll never directly link you to it, Hillary. Your Presidential campaign is safe. We promise. Remember our little donation to the Foundation? Take that as a sign of our good faith.”

By now, the mainstream press could have blasted Hillary to smithereens re the Foundation’s crimes. Her campaign would be in smoking ruins. Her familiar pleas of “I didn’t know” would be falling on deaf ears all across the America. But it hasn’t happened.

The press is betting they can hold things together for her through Election Day. And they want to, because they still believe she and Bill are where the power is. It’s too late not to believe it. Bury all doubt, full steam ahead, pretend her campaign is on track, keep slamming Trump, and hope and pray.

Behind all this is the knowledge, fully grasped, that the Globalist agenda is at stake. Remaking the world as one economic and political order, under one elite management system—this is Hillary’s mantra. This is her mandate. This is her goal. Nothing can be allowed to derail the mission.

Now we are talking about the power behind, and far above, the Clinton throne. Major media are the propaganda arm of Globalism. That’s engraved in granite.

If Jeb Bush had been running against Hillary, as envisioned, then the press could have played a lot harder against Hillary, because Jeb is her Globalist cousin, and it would have made no difference who won.

But suddenly, the cowboy strolled into the saloon with his mouth on Go. Trump showed up.

With Jeb huddling in a corner, in a puddle of tears, sucking his thumb, Hillary and Bill didn’t have to worry about the press going after them. She was the only Globalist on the ticket. She would therefore catch a major break.

All would be well, and it was, until Trump’s numbers and supporters took off like 4th of July rockets.

Now the media have resolved to stay the course the rest of the way, even if it means Hillary’s aides will be dragging her fading carcass across the threshold of the Oval Office and propping her in the chair behind the Queen Victoria Resolute Desk, after the swearing-in ceremony on January 20, 2017.

To this end, they continue to build a universe for her. Synthetic, hermetically sealed.

Its typical fake name is: We Find No Smoking Gun.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

I’m reposting this piece because, amazingly, the vote-rigging system it describes has not gotten widespread attention. The system can be used across the entire US.

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS.

I urge you to dive into her multi-part series, Fraction Magic (Part-1 here). Here are key Harris quotes. They’re all shockers:

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

“This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.”

“GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.”

“Instead of ‘1’ the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.”

“Weighting a race [through the use of GEMS] removes the principle of ‘one person-one vote’ to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.”

“All evidence that [rigged] fractional values ever existed [in the GEMS system] can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the [rigged] decimals will fail to reveal they were used.”

“Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers [i.e., rigging] are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.”

A contact who, so far, apparently wishes to remain anonymous states the following about the history of the GEMS system:

“The Fractional vote [rigging] portion traces directly to Jeffrey W. Dean, whose wife was primary stockholder of the company that developed GEMS. He ran the company but was prohibited from handling money or checks due to a criminal conviction for computer fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Almost immediately after being released from prison he was granted intimate access to elections data and large government contracts for ballot printing and ballot processing.”

I see no effort on the part of the federal government, state governments, or the mainstream press to investigate the GEMS system or respond to Bev Harris’ extensive analysis.

“Harris has been referred to as ‘the godmother’ of the election reform movement. (Boston Globe). Vanity Fair magazine credits her with founding the movement to reform electronic voting. Time Magazine calls her book, Black Box Voting, ‘the bible’ of electronic voting… Harris’s investigations have led some to call her the ‘Erin Brockovich of elections.’ (Salon.com)… Harris has supervised five ‘hack demonstrations’ in the field, using real voting machines. These have been covered by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and in formal reports by the United States General Accounting Office…”

So far, her analysis of GEMS seems to be labeled “too hot to handle.” Press outlets prefer to report the slinging of mud from both Presidential candidates’ camps. Meanwhile, the actual results of the coming elections—including Congressional races—appear to be up for grabs, depending on who controls GEMS.

Update: From what I understand, each state government appoints a “consultant” to manage GEMS on election night. That person would be capable of rigging the vote.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS.

I urge you to dive into her multi-part series, Fraction Magic (Part-1 here). Here are key Harris quotes. They’re all shockers:

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

“This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.”

“GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.”

“Instead of ‘1’ the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.”

“Weighting a race [through the use of GEMS] removes the principle of ‘one person-one vote’ to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.”

“All evidence that [rigged] fractional values ever existed [in the GEMS system] can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the [rigged] decimals will fail to reveal they were used.”

“Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers [i.e., rigging] are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.”

A contact who, so far, apparently wishes to remain anonymous states the following about the history of the GEMS system:

“The Fractional vote [rigging] portion traces directly to Jeffrey W. Dean, whose wife was primary stockholder of the company that developed GEMS. He ran the company but was prohibited from handling money or checks due to a criminal conviction for computer fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Almost immediately after being released from prison he was granted intimate access to elections data and large government contracts for ballot printing and ballot processing.”

I see no effort on the part of the federal government, state governments, or the mainstream press to investigate the GEMS system or respond to Bev Harris’ extensive analysis.

“Harris has been referred to as ‘the godmother’ of the election reform movement. (Boston Globe). Vanity Fair magazine credits her with founding the movement to reform electronic voting. Time Magazine calls her book, Black Box Voting, ‘the bible’ of electronic voting… Harris’s investigations have led some to call her the ‘Erin Brockovich of elections.’ (Salon.com)… Harris has supervised five ‘hack demonstrations’ in the field, using real voting machines. These have been covered by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and in formal reports by the United States General Accounting Office…”

So far, her analysis of GEMS seems to be labeled “too hot to handle.” Press outlets prefer to report the slinging of mud from both Presidential candidates’ camps. Meanwhile, the actual results of the coming elections—including Congressional races—appear to be up for grabs, depending on who controls GEMS.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.